won the cause for
which she had spent so much life and treasure.
[1] It is pleasant to know that a hundred years later, in the autumn
of 1881, a number of English gentlemen were present at the centennial
celebration of the taking of Yorktown, to express their hearty good
will toward the nation which their ancestors had tried in vain to keep
a part of Great Britain.
George III could hold out no longer; on a foggy December morning in
1782, he entered the House of Lords, and with a faltering voice read a
paper in which he acknowledged the independence of the United States
of America. He closed his reading with the prayer that neither Great
Britain nor America might suffer from the separation; and he expressed
the hope that religion, language, interest, and affection might prove
an effectual bond of union between the two countries.
Eventually the separation proved "a mutual advantage, since it removed
to a great extent the arbitrary restrictions on trade, gave a new
impetus to commerce, and immensely increased the wealth of both
nations."[2]
[2] Goldwin Smith's lectures on "The Foundation of the American
Colonies." In general see "Lecky's American Revolution," and the
"Leading Facts of American History" or the "Student's American
History," in this series.
554. The Lord George Gordon Riots (1780).
While the American war was in progress, England had not been entirely
quiet at home. A prominent Whig leader in Parliament had moved the
repeal of some of the most severe laws against the Roman Catholics.[3]
The greater part of these measures had been enacted under William III,
"when England was in mortal terror" of the restoration of James II
(S491). The Solicitor-General said, in seconding the motion for
repeal, that these lwas were "a disgrace to humanity." Parliament
agreed with him in this matter. Because these unjust acts were
stricken from the Statute Book, Lord George Gordon, a half-crazed
fanatic,[1] who was in Parliament, led an attack upon the government
(1780).
[3] The worst of these laws was that which punished a priest who
should celebrate mass, with imprisonment for life. See
Taswell-Langmead's "English Constitutional History," p.627, and
compare J.F. Bright's "History of England," III, 1087.
[1] Gordon seems to have been of unsound mind. He used to attack both
political parties with such fury that it was jocosely said there were
"three parties in Parliament--the ministry, the opposition, and
|